Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 4, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

K.M. v. Child Support Enforcement Agency

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: CAAP-24-0000310

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (9.2K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
04-MAR-2026
08:00 AM
Dkt. 66 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

K.M., Petitioner-Appellant, v.
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, Respondent-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 3FAL-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

K.M., representing himself, appealed an Office of Child
Support Hearings (OCSH) decision to the Family Court of the Third
Circuit. The Family Court dismissed the appeal because K.M. did
not comply with Rule 72 of the Hawai#i Family Court Rules
(HFCR).1 K.M. appeals. We affirm.
As it relates to this case, HFCR Rule 72 (eff. Apr. 25,
2022) provides:

Rule 72. APPEAL TO THE FAMILY COURT.

(a) How taken. Where a right of appeal to the
family court is allowed by statute, any person or party
allowed by statute may appeal from such decision, order or
action by filing a notice of appeal in the family court
having jurisdiction of the matter. As used in this Rule,
the term "appellant" means any person or party filing a
notice of appeal, and "appellee" means every governmental
body or official (other than a court) whose decision, order
or action is appealed from, and every other party to the
proceedings.
. . . .

1
The Honorable Jeffrey W. Ng presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(c) Service. Promptly after filing the notice of
appeal, the appellant shall serve a copy thereof upon each
appellee.

(d) Record on appeal.
(1) DESIGNATION. The appellant shall, concurrently
with filing the notice of appeal or no later than 10 days
after filing the notice of appeal, file with the clerk of
the court either conventionally or through JEFS a
Designation of Record on Appeal (the "Designation"). The
Designation shall specify the documents, transcripts,
minutes, and exhibits ("the designated materials") that the
appellant desires to be filed in the family court in
connection with the appeal.
The appellant shall fill out an Order for
Certification and Transmission of the Record form, provided
by the family court, which shall command the governmental
official or body whose decision, order or action is appealed
from (the "agency"), to certify and transmit the designated
materials to the family court no later than 20 days
following service of the filed "Order for Certification and
Transmission of the Record" or within such further time as
may be allowed by the family court. . . .

K.M. opened the family court case by filing a Notice of
Appeal. He attached an unsigned copy of a document titled
Administrative Findings and Order, and a copy of an Order
Recalling Administrative Hearing dated June 3, 2022, apparently
signed by an OCSH hearings officer.
The Order Recalling Administrative Hearing recited that
a hearing took place on June 2, 2022, by conference call. K.M.,
the responsible parent, attended. So did J.P., the custodial
parent, and a Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA)
representative. At the hearing, OCSH ordered that K.M. pay child
support of $88.00 per month starting on February 1, 2022.
However:

The hearing was recorded but due to a technical error, no
recording could be located after the hearing. To correct
this situation, the hearing is being recalled to July 28,
2022, at 9:00 a.m. so that a record can be made.

It appears K.M. intended to appeal either OCSH's
June 2, 2022 oral order to pay child support, or OCSH's June 3,
2022 order recalling the June 2, 2022 hearing.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

K.M.'s Notice of Appeal was filed on June 28, 2022. It
named CSEA as the respondent. Under HFCR Rule 72(a), OCSH and
J.P. should have been named as appellees. The Notice of Appeal
should have been served on CSEA, OCSH, and J.P. under HFCR
Rule 72(c), but K.M.'s certificate of service stated it was
mailed to the Family Court only.
Under HFCR Rule 72(d)(1), K.M. was supposed to have
filed a Designation of Record on Appeal that specified the
documents, transcripts, minutes, and exhibits he wanted OCSH to
certify and file with the Family Court. It was due on July 8,
2022. K.M. never filed one.
Instead, on July 10, 2023, K.M. tendered Appellant's
Opening Brief to officials at Saguaro Correctional Center.2
Petitioner's Supplimental [sic] Memorandum was filed by the
Family Court on August 21, 2023. K.M.'s Motion for Summary
Judgment was filed by the court on October 10, 2023. The court
filed K.M.'s letter requesting default (because no one responded
to his filings) on December 11, 2023. The court filed his Motion
for Hearing on February 2, 2024.
CSEA filed a Request to Dismiss Appeal on February 6,
2024. It argued that K.M. did not file the Designation of Record
on Appeal required by HFCR Rule 72(d), the ten-day deadline had
expired, and K.M. did not request an extension of time to comply.
K.M.'s Motion to Reject Appellees [sic] Request to
Dismiss and Grant Appellants Motion for Hearing Filed Feb. 2,
2024 was filed by the Family Court on February 27, 2024. From
what we can discern, K.M. argued: the request should have been
made by motion and is "unsupported by common law"; CSEA had to
file an answering brief within forty days after he served his
opening brief under Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP)
Rule 28(c); the documents attached to his Notice of Appeal were

2
The family court clerk filed the brief on July 18, 2023, but it is
deemed filed on July 10, 2023, the date K.M. tendered it to prison officials.
Setala v. J.C. Penney Co., 97 Hawai#i 484, 485, 40 P.3d 886, 887 (2002). K.M.
is serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole
for attempted murder in the first degree of a law enforcement officer.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"a brief description with exhibits included, of the facts in
connection to the appeal[; t]here is no need to re-file what
exists on record"; and "[t]hen or no time later, was [he]
provided an 'Order for Certification and Transmission of the
Record' form by the court clerk as provided by HFCR 72."
The Family Court entered an order dismissing K.M.'s
appeal on February 28, 2024. K.M. appealed. A Judgment was
entered on July 22, 2025, on a temporary remand.
K.M.'s opening brief contends that "[t]he family court
erred by [(1)] failing to analyze the agency's findings and
conclusions for error, [(2)] failing to respond to [K.M.'s]
motions and [(3)] failing to enter default against appellees[.]"
(1) K.M. argues that the attachments to his Notice of
Appeal, although not titled "designation," constituted the agency
record on appeal. K.M. seems to misread HFCR Rule 72(d). The
rule does not require, or allow, K.M. to file the record on
appeal himself. It requires that K.M. specify the material he
desires OCSH "to certify and transmit . . . to the family court"
for the record on appeal.
K.M. argues that "the family court failed to exercise
its power and communicate with [him] to fulfill transmission of
record in respect to Rule 72 and consideration of his pro se
status."3 K.M. seems to misunderstand HFCR Rule 72(d)(1). It
says the appellant "shall fill out an Order for Certification and
Transmission of the Record form, provided by the family court[.]"
That doesn't mean the family court had to send the form to him.
The form is available to the public on the Judiciary's website.4
"The law is clear in this jurisdiction that the
appellant has the burden of furnishing the appellate court with a
sufficient record to positively show the alleged error."

3
During a hearing on May 17, 2023, the Family Court and counsel for
CSEA gave K.M. basic information about correcting the procedural deficiencies
in his appeal.
4
See HRCP Forms 29A-29D (Oct. 2012), https://www.courts.state.hi.us
/docs/form/statewide forms/HRCP Forms 29A 29D.pdf https://perma.cc/3YFN-CH2T.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai#i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553,
558 (1995). K.M. did not furnish the Family Court with the
certified agency record from which it could analyze OCSH's
findings and conclusions for error.
(2) We construe K.M.'s second point of error to say
the Family Court erred by not ruling on K.M.'s motions for
summary judgment and for a hearing. The Family Court's dismissal
of K.M.'s appeal for not complying with HFCR Rule 72 effectively
denied those motions, because there was no agency record for the
Family Court to review to conduct a hearing on, or to decide, a
motion for summary judgment.
(3) K.M. argued that CSEA should have been defaulted
because it had to file an answering brief within forty days after
he filed his opening brief with the Family Court under HRAP
Rule 28(c), but didn't. HRAP Rule 28(c) doesn't apply to family
court proceedings under HFCR Rule 72. See HRAP Rule 1.
Instead, HFCR Rule 72.1(a) states: "The court shall
issue a briefing schedule[.]" The Family Court did not issue a
briefing schedule. There was no deadline for K.M. to file an
opening brief, or for anyone to file an answering brief.
The Family Court did not err by dismissing K.M.'s
appeal. The Family Court's July 22, 2025 Judgment is affirmed.
K.M.'s December 26, 20255 motion for retention of oral argument
is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 4, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
K.M., Petitioner- Presiding Judge
Appellant.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Jorge Keoki R. Cadiz, Associate Judge
Deputy Attorney General,
State of Hawai#i, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Respondent-Appellee. Associate Judge

5
The envelope transmitting K.M.'s motion to the supreme court
clerk's office does not contain a legible date of receipt by prison officials.
The certificate of service is dated December 18, 2025, within ten days of our
December 8, 2025 order of no oral argument. We deem the motion to have been
timely filed.

5